E435 
.P461 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



00005025^5 



^9 
















> 



/ 



FREEDOM NATIONAL— SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. JOHN J. PERRY, OF MAINE 



Comparative Nationality and Sectionalism of the Republican and 

Democratic Parties. 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 1, 1856, 

In Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. 



Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, in the discussions 
that have taken place upon this floor, and at va- 
rious other places in the Union, the Republican 
party has been charged with "sectionalism." 
The authors of this groundless assumption have, 
in the same connection, boasted of the nationality 
of the Democratic party. These two propositions 
•'re to discuss. 
Prior to the meeting of the Thirty-third Con- 
. the country was enjoying a remarkable 
state of repose. The waves of agitation, which 
years had rolled over the country, had 
ited their fury, and ceased to disturb the peace 
n the perpetuity of the Union. The 
' • :ordant political elements had become quieted, 
i universal peace and almost unexampled 
prosperity reigned throughout the States. The 
ile, a few months before, passed through a 
Presidential contest, and elected to the Executive 
chair of the nation a son of New England by an 
>a helming majority. 

I Pierce accepted the nomination upon 

a platform which declared — 

"The Democratic party will resist all attempts at re- 

ig, ia Congress or out of it. the agitation of the 

lun.uader whatever shape or color \\\e attempt 

may be made." 

The President, at the opening of Congress, 
declared, in the most emphatic terms, his deter- 
mination to carry out the principles upon v. 
Me was elected. In his message he says : 

'• But notwithstanding differences of opinion and senti- 
ment, which then existed in relation to detail » and specific 
provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished oil 
whose devotion to the Union can never he doubted, has 
given renewed vigor to our institutions ami restoi 
reuse ol repose and security to the public mind thro 
lie Confederacy. That this repose is to sufl 
during my official term, if I hare power to 
• I, those who placed me here may be assured." 

The last Congress had been in session only a 
few months, before the country was Btartled with 
the unexpected rumor, that an old time-honored 
cVmxpact, which wns originally entered into to 



avert the most threatening dangers, and which 
had been most religiously lived up to for more 
than thirty years, was to be ruthlessly abrogated. 
The sequel is too well known to need an extended 
notice. ^ Leading men in the Democratic party, ii 
utter violation of their past professions, force 
into Congress the most violent, fearful Slavery agi- 
tation that ever distracted this country. President 
Pierce repudiated his pledges, trampled under 
foot the platform upon which he was elected, 
turned his back upon his friends that had eleva- 
ted him to power, and used the whole force of 
his Administration to carry on this agitation, and 
expose the vast regions of Kansas and Nebraska 
to the inroads of African Slaverv. The deed 
done. 

Slavery agitation, thus reopened in its most 
violent form, was not long confined to the Halls 
of Congress. It went out and spread all over the 
country, kindling up the raging tires of internal 
discord in every direction. The people becam 
alarmed, and aroused themselves in their lion 
i trength to meet the impending danger. Through 
all the free States they resolved that " forbear- 
ance had ceased to be a virtue," and that I 
would resist the outrage in the peaceable, consti- 
tutional way of settling such questions— at th< 
ballot-box. This inaugurated a new polil 
era. With a patriotism worthy of the men 
the cause which incited it. tile freemen of tb< 
North laid aside their old party predilections. 
gave a paramount importance to the gri 
forced upon them, and in almost every in;:;. 
gave those members of Congress who had 1 1 
for the Kansas-Nebraska bill leave to stay a\ 
home. Only seven members from the free Stati I 
out of the whole number who voted for this meas- 
ure, have found their way back to the present 
House. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise 
has completely broken down old party distinc- 
tions. The old Whig party, once mighty an- - 
powerful, and which in times past has bad fnl*«- 



&Ab\ 



lectual giants for its leaders, scarcely has a name 
in any State. North or South. The once glorious 
old Democratic party has been stabbed in the 
house of its friends ; and, after retreating before 
the surging waves of popular indignation, can 
now only be found around the shades of the 
Presidential mansion, or in little squads about 
our custom-houses, post-offices, and such oilier 
places as are dispensed Executive favors, in the 
shape of " loaves and fishes." As a national 
party, it has no longer an existence. The causes, 
to which a brief allusion has been made, have 
created the necessity for another party. That 
party has been inaugurated ; and as its princi- 
ples are but the revival of the doctrines of the 
immortal Jefferson and the Republican fathers, 
it is perfectly natural and proper for it to assume 
the time-honored name of " Republican." 

As I announced in the commencement of these 
remarks, I shall now attempt to show that the 
Republican party is a national party; that it 
stands upon a platform of principles eminently 
national; and that no national man, North or 
South, East or West, can, with any show of con- 
sistency, refuse to stand upon it. 

The Republican party, through its delegates at 
Pittsburgh, on the 22d* of February last, adopted 
an address, containing a " declaration of its 
principles and purposes," which has been pub- 
lished to the world, and which is briefly summed 
up as follows : 

'• We declare, in the first place, our fixed and unaltered 
devotion to the Constitution of the Uni ed States— to the 
ends for which it was established, and to the means which 
it provided for their attainment. We accept the sol inn 
protestation of the people of the United States, that they 
ordained it ' in order to form a more perf cfUnion, estab- 
lish justic , insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the 
common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure 
ihe blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.'' 
We be'ieve that the powers which it confers upon tlie 
Government of the United Stat- s ;.re ample for the accom- 
plishment of these objects; and that if these powers are 
exercised in the spirit of the Constitution itself, they can- 
not lead to any other result. We respect those great ri-hts 
which the Constitution declares to he inviolable— freedom 
of speech and of the press, the free exercise of religious 
belief, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble 
and to petition'the Government for a redress of grievances. 
We woule preserve those great safeguards of civil free- 
dom, the habeas corpus, the right of trial by jury, and the 
right of personal liberty, unless deprived thereof for crime 
by due process of law. We declare our purpose to obey, 
in all things, the requirements of the Constitution, and of 
all laws enacted in pursuance- thereof. We cherish a pro- 
found reverence for the wise and patriotic men by whom 
t was framed, and a lively sense of the b'essings it has 
conferred upon our country and upon mankind throughout 
•he world. In every crisis of difficulty and of danger we 
shall invoke its spirit and proclaim the supremacy of its 
authority. 

"In the next place^w declare our ardent and unsha- 
ken attachment to this Union of American States which 
the Constitution created and has thus far preserved. We 
revere it as the purchase of the blood of our forefathers, 
as the condition of our national renown, and as the guar- 
dian and guarantee of that liberty which the Constitution 
was designed to secure. We will defend and protec it 
against all its enera es. We will recognise no geographi- 
cal divisions, no local interests, no narrow or sectional 
prejudices, in our endeavors to preserve the union of these 
States against foreign aggression and domestic strife. 
A r hat we claim for ourselves we claim for all. The 
rights, privileges, and liberties, which we demand as our 
nheritance, we concede as their inheritance to all the 
-iti7j;ns of this Republic." 

Now, let me candidly ask if there is anything 
actional in the sentiments contained in the above 



declaration? If there is, then the whole connrrj 
has been laboring under a delusion ever since 
our Government was formed. But, to be more 
specific, it is not to be denied that the great 
leading idea of the Republican party is the non- 
extension of Slavery; in other words, opposition to 
its extension into free territory. This is no now 
dogma. The heroes of the Revolution, the pa- 
triots of the early times, who shaped and fash- 
ioned our political institutions, entertained the 
same views, and incorporated them into their 
political action. They believed chattel Slavery, 
to be a great moral, social, and political evil. So 
believing, they adopted every practicable mode 
in their power to to prevent its spread; at the 
same time looking forward to the day which 
should witness the fruition of their earnest 
hopes — its total abolition. To place this matter 
beyond all doubt or cavil, I will refer to a few 
well-authenticated historical facts, in proof of 
the position here assumed. 

George Washington, in a letter to Robert Mor- 
ris, dated Mount Vernon, April 12, 1786, said: 

"I can only say tha' there is not a man living who 
wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted 
for the abolition of it, [Slavery;] but (here is only one 
proper and effectual mode in which it can be accom- 
plished, and that is by legislative, authority ; and thip, so 
far as my suffrage will go, shall never lie wanting."— 
9 Sparks' s Washington, 153. 

In a letter to John F. Mercer, September, 9, 
1786, he expressed the same sentiment: - 

'•I never mean, unless some particular circumstances 
should compel me to it. to posse-s anolher slave by pur- 
chase, it being among my first wi lies to see sme plan 
adopted by which Slavery in this country may he nbol 
ished by law." — Ibid. 

And in a letter to St. John Sinclair he further 
said : 

'•There are in Pennsylvania laws for the gradual alio 
lition of Slavery, which ne.tlier Virginia nor Maryland 
have at present, but which nothing is more certain tlran 
they must have, and at a period not remote.''' 

Thomas Jefferson, in an able article on the 
rights of the American Colonies, by him pre- 
pared and laid before the Virginia Convention 
which assembled in August, 1774, for the pur- 
pose of appointing delegates to the proposed 
Congress, remarks as follows : 

• The abolition of domestic Slavery is the greatisi 
object of desire in these Colonies, where it was unhap- 
pily introduced in iheir infant sta e. But, previous to the 
enfranchisement of t.i- slaves, it is necessary to exclude 
further importation* from Africa. Yet our repeated at- 
tempts to effect tnis bv prohibitions, and by imposing 
duties which iniglu amount to prohibition, have been hith- 
erto defeated by his Majesty's negative; thus preferring 
the immediate advantage of a t'vw African corsairs to the 
lasting interest* of" flic- American Slater and ihe rights of 
human nature, deeply wounded 'y this infamous prac- 
tice."— A/nett'can Archives, ilh Series, vol. 1. P- 096. 

Mr. Jefferson further declared his own senti- 
ments in his Notes on Virginia, when he said : 

"Nobody wishes more ardent. v than I lo see an aboli 
tion not only of the trade, but of the condition of Slavery, 
and certainly nobody will be more willing to encounter 
any sacrifice for that object" 

In the same work he further said- 
"The whole commerce between master and slave is » | 
continual exercise of the most unremitting despotism on 
the one part, and degrading submission on the other.' 
* * * » * " With what 'execration should the states- 
man be loaded, who. permitting one half of the citizen* 
thus to trample on the right* of the other, transforms tho 



'04, 



nio despots ami those into ( nemies. destroys the morals of 
the one part., and lh>- amor jmtrirt of the other! Can the 
liberties of ;t nation be th usjhl secure, when we have 
removed iht-ironlv firm basia, a conviction in the minds 
of the people that these liberties are the gift of God ? That 
they are not violated but by his wrath? Indked, I trem- 
ble FOR MY COUNTRY WHEN I REELECT GOD IS JUST, AND Ills 
JUSTICE CANNOT SLEEP FOREVER." 

In the Convention which framed the Constitu- 
tion, Mr. Madison declared he " thought it wrong 
to admit into the Constitution the idea that there 
could be property in man." — Madison Papers, 
1429. 

Gouverneur Morris said he " never would con- 
cur in upholding domesyc Slavery ; it was a ne- 
farious institution ; it was the curse of Heaven 
on the States where it prevailed." — 3 Madison 
Papers, 12G3. 

Mr. Gerry thought the Convention " had noth- 
ing to do with the conduct of the States as to 
slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any 
sanctio?i to it." — 3 Madison Papers, 1394. 

Mr. Mason, of Virginia, said " Slavery discour- 
ages arts and manufactures. The poor despise 
labor when performed by slaves. They produce 
the most pernicious effects on manners. Every 
master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring 
the judgment of Heaven on a country." — 3 Mad- 
ison Paper/s, 1391. 

Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, said " Slavery in 
time will not be a speck in our country." — 3 Mad- 
ison Papers, 1392. 

Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, said " he was 
opposed to a tax on slaves, because it implied 
they were property." — 3 Madison Papers, 1396. 

Mr. Williamson said " that both in practice and 
opinion he was against Slavery." — 3 Madison 
Papers, 1428. 

Similar views were expressed by other mem- 
bers. In the Conventions of the States, called to 
ratify the Constitution, similar opinions were ex- 
pressed by the leading men in the same. I will 
only refer to a few of them. 

James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, had been a 
leading member of the Convention ; and in the 
ratification Convention of his State, when speak- 
ing of the clause relating to the power of Con- 
gress over the slave trade after twenty years, 
he said : 

"I consider this clause as laying the foundation for 
banishing Slavery out of this country; and though the 
periud is more distant than I could wish, it will produce 
the same kind, gradual change as was produced in Peun 
sylvania." * * * * "The new States which are to 
be formed will be under the control of Congress in this 
particular, and Slavery will never be introduced among 
them."— 2 Elliot's Dtbates, 4.52. 

In another place, speaking of this clause, he 
said: 

" It presents us with the pleasing prospect that the 
rights of mankind will be acknowledged and established 
throughout the Union. If there was no other lovely fea- 
ture in the Constitution but this one, it would dilluse a 
beauty over its whole countenance. Yet the lapse of a 
few years, and Congress will have power to exterminate 
Slavery from within our borders."— 2 Elliot's Debates, 4!-4. 

In the ratification Convention of Massachu- 
setts, General Heath said : 

' : The migration, or importation. ice, is confined to the 
States now existing only; new Stales cannot claim it. 
Congress, by their ordinance for creating new Slates, 
some time since declared that the new States shall be re- 
publican, and that there shall be no Slavery in them.'' — 
2 Elliots Debates, 115 



Nor were these views and anticipations con- 
fined to the free States. In the ratification Con- 
vention of Virginia, Mr. Johnson said: 

"They tell us that they see a progressive danger of 
bringing about emancipation. The principle has begun 
since the Revolution. Let us do what we will, it will 
come round. Slavery has been the foundation of much 
of that impiety and dissipation which have been so much 
disseminated among our countrj men. If it were totally 
abolished, it would do much good."— 3 Elliot's Debates, 
6,48. 

But I will not consume further time to prove 
this point, but will only add an extract from a 
speech delivered by Mr. Leigh in the Convention 
of Virginia, in 1832, which fully corroborates the 
truth of this position. He said: 

"I thought, till very lately, that it was known to every 
body, that during the Revolution, and for many years 
alter, the abolition of Slavery was a favorite topic with 
many of our ablest statesmen, who entertained with re- 
spect all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity could 
suggest for its accomplishment." 

The founders of the Government not only left 
their testimony as individuals upon the question 
of Slavery, but their well-known opinions were 
incorporated into the Constitution and legislation 
of the country. 

To go back to the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, we find Washington, and Jefferson, and 
Franklin, and Sherman, and Pinckney, and 
their illustrious compatriots, solemnly subscri- 
bing their names to these " self-evident truths, 
that all men are created equal ; that they are 
endowed by their Maker with inherent and inal- 
ienable rights ; that among these are life, Liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness." 

The Constitution itself is a great chart of 
Liberty. Nowhere in it can be found the word 
"slave," or "slaves," so careful were its founders 
to give no implied sanction to the traffic in human 
beings. In its very commencement, in its pre- 
amble, it declares — 

"The people of the United States, in order to form a 
more perfect Union, establish justice," * * * "pro- 
mote the general welfare, and stcure the. blessings of liber- 
ty" * * * "do ordain and establish this Constitution." 

In the same instrument it is declared — 
" No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
without due process of law." — Amendment, Art. 5. 

There is another provision contained in the 
Constitution, which for the last ten year3 has 
been the subject of warm discussion, both in and 
out of Congress. I mean that provision which 
gives Congress "power to dispose of, and make 
all needful rules and regulations respecting, the 
territory or other property belonging to the Uni- 
ted States." In this connection, I do not propose 
to go into a discussion of the question, whether 
Congress has constitutional power to interdict 
Slavery in the Territories of the United States; 
but shall here content myself with showing how 
the framers of the Constitution understood it 
themselves. 

On the 1st of March, 1784, Congress voted to 
accept of a cession from the State of Virginia of 
what was subsequently known as the Northwest 
Territory. On the same day, Mr. Jefferson, from 
a committee consisting of himself, Mr. Chnse of 
Maryland, and Mr. Howell of Rhode Island, re- 
ported a plan for the Government. This plan 
embraced all the Western Territory, and all tcr- 



ritory coded or to be ceded by individual States to 
the United States. ( See Journals of Congress, 
April 23, 1784.) One of the provisions of said 
plan is as fellows : 

"That aftej the year 1800 of the Christian era, there 
shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in any 
of the said States, otherwise than in the punishment of 
crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted 
to have been I ersonally guilty."— 4 Jour. Cong. Confed- 
eration, 371. 

Territories were in this article of the Ordi- 
nance spoken of as States, because it was con- 
templated to erect the Territories -into States. 
Under the Articles of Confederation, a majority 
of the thirteen States was necessary to an affirm- 
ative decision of any question. On the 19th of 
April a vote was taken on this proyiso. The 
vote stood for the proviso — six States, viz : New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- 
necticut, New York, and Pennsylvania. Against 
it — three States, viz: Virginia, Maryland, and 
South Carolina. Delaware and Georgia were not 
represented. New Jersey, by Mr. Dick, voted ay; 
but her vote, only one delegate being present, 
could not be couDted. North Carolina was divi- 
ded — Mr. Williamson voting ay, and Mr. Speight 
uo. From Virginia, Mr. Jefferson voted ay, and 
Messrs. Hardy and Mercer no. Of the twenty- 
three delegates present, sixteen voted for, and 
seven against — thus this proviso was defeated by 
a minority vote. The people were for it, and the 
States for it ; but it failed by a provision which 
enabled the minority to control the majority. 

In the same year, Mr. Rufus King, of Massa- 
chusetts, moved the proviso in the following 
form : 

"That there shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary 
servitude in any of the States described in the resolves 
of Congress of the 2>d of April, 17i-4, otherwise than in 
the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have 
been personally guilty; and that this regulation shall be 
an article of compact, and remain a fundamental princi- 
ple of the Constitutions between the thirteen original 
States, and such o( the States described in the said resolve 
of the 23d of April, 17t54." — 4 Jour. Cong. Confed., 431. 

This was committed by a vote of two to one, 
and resulted in the celebrated Ordinance of 1787, 
which expressly prohibited Slavery and involuntary 
servitude, except for crime, throughout the whole ter- 
ritory [then belonging to the United States] for- 
hver. This proviso received the votes of every 
delegate (with a single exception from New York) 
in the Convention. The First Congress under the 
Constitution ratified the Ordinance of 1787. In the 
Convention which framed the Constitution there 
were twenty men who were also members of the 
First Congress under the Federal Constitution. 
This proves very clearly that they understood 
that Congress had power, under the Constitution 
which they themselves had made, to prohibit 
Slavery in the Territories. 

Thus history vindicates the fact, that the pa- 
triots of the Revolution, the members of the old 
State Confederation, the members of the Con- 
vention which framed the Constitution, and the 
members of the First Congress after the adoption 
of the Constitution, entertained the same senti- 
ments upon the questions of Slavery extension 
and restriction that are now advocated by the 
Republican party. 



But I will not stop here, but proceed to prove 
that the views of the Republican party on the 
constitutional right of Congress to prohibit Sla- 
very in the Territories are sustained by the legis- 
lation of Congress from the meeting of the First 
Congress up to 1848, and that such legislation 
has received the sanction of every President, 
with a single exception, beginning with General 
Washington, up to, and including, President Polk. 
To maintain this proposition, I shall introduce 
facts direct from the records of the Government: 

1. The Ordinance of 1787 was recognised by 
chapter one, first session of First Congress. 
There seems to have been no objection to it. 
Mr. Madison's name appears on the Journal of 
the proceedings the same day it passed. He was 
no doubt present, and concurred in the measure. 
The act was signed by General Washington. 

2. On the 7th of April, 1798, an act was passed 
authorizing the establishment of a Government 
in Mississippi Territory. It authorized the Presi- 
dent to establish therein a Government similar to 
that in the Territory northwest of the Ohio river, 
excepting the Jefferson proviso of 1787. It then 
prohibited the importation of slaves from any 
place without the limits of the United States. 
This act passed about ten years before Congress 
was authorized by the Constitution to prohibit 
bringing slaves into the States which were origi- 
nally parties to the Federal compact. This act 
passed under the Administration of the elder 
Adams. 

3. At the first session of the Sixth Congress, 
chapter forty-one, laws of 1800, an act was pass- 
ed creating a Territorial Government for Indiana, 
out of the Northwest Territory — reaffirming the 
Ordinance of 1787 — and was signed by Presi- 
dent Adams. 

4. On the 26th of March, 1804, an act was 
passed, dividing Louisiana into two Territories, 
and providing that all that part of the Territory 
south of the thirty-third parallel of latitude, now 
the southern boundary of Arkansas, should be 
erected into the Territory of Orleans. In this act 
there are three provisions in respect to Slavery 
in the Territory : 1. The importation from any 
place without the limits of the United States was 
prohibited; 2. The importation from anyplace 
within the United States, of slaves imported since 
the 1st of May, 1798, was prohibited; 3. The 
importation of slaves, except by a " citizen of the 
United States removing into said Territory for 
actual settlement, and being at the time of such 
removal bona fide owner of such slaves," was 
prohibited. This is one of the strongest cases on 
record to show the control of Congress over Sla- 
very in the Territories. It was a direct prohibi- 
tion of the domestic slave trade. This act was 
signed by President Jefferson. 

5. On the 11th of January, 1805, an act was 
passed establishing the Territory of Michigan, 
reaffirming the Ordinance of 1787. 

6. On the 3d of February, 1809, a similar 
Government was established for the Territory of 
Illinois, recognising the same Ordinance. These 
two last acts were under the Administration of 
Jefferson. 

7. On the 4th of June, 1812, an act was passed 



providing for the Government of the Territory of 
Missouri, and the laws and regulations in force 
in the District of Louisiana were continued in 
operation. 

8. On the 3d of March, 1817, a Government 
was formed for the Territory of Alabama, and 
the laws then in force within it as a part of Mis- 
sissippi were continued in operation. These acts 
were passed under Mr. Madison's Administration. 

9. On the 9th of March, 1819, the Territory of 
Arkansas was formed from the Territory of Mis- 
sissippi, and a Government established for it. 

10. On the 6th of March, 1820, the inhabitants 
of Missouri were authorized to form a State Gov- 
ernment, and Slavery prohibited in all that part 
of the Territory north of 36° 30' north latitude. 

11. On the 10th of March, 1822, a Territorial 
Government was established for Florida, con- 
taining provisions making it unlawful "to import 
or bring into the said Territory, from any place, 
without the limits of the United States," any 
slave or slaves. These three acts were signed by 
Mr. Monroe. 

12. On the 20th of April, 1836, an act was 
passed establishing the Territorial Government 
of Wisconsin, reaffirming the Ordinance of 1787. 
This act was signed by General Jackson. 

13. On the 12th of June, 1838, a Territorial 
Government for Iowa was established, extending 
the laws of the United States over the same, and 
signed by Mr. Van Bureu. 

14. On the 3d of March, 1848, an act was 
passed establishing the Territorial Government 
of Oregon, with the proviso forever prohibiting 
Slavery in the same. This act was signed by 
Mr. Polk. 

Here is an almost uninterrupted series of le- 
gislative acts, commencing with the First Congress, 
and running through the long period of more 
than half a century, containing the official sanc- 
tion of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, 
Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk, directly 
recognising the constitutional right of Congress 
to prohibit Slavery in the Territories of the United 
States. 

Thus the legislation of the Geueral Government 
for more than half a century furnishes a prece- 
dent, in strict conformity with the platform of the 
Republican party, on the right of Congress to 
interdict Slavery in the national domain. If, then, 
lie Republican party are to be denounced as sec- 
tional, on account of entertaining and defending 
these time-honored doctrines, then the revolution- 
ary heroes were sectional — the signers of the 
Declaration of Independence were sectional — that 
immortal instrument was itself sectional — the 
framer3 of the Constitution were sectional, and so 
is the Constitution itself. Every President of the 
United States, from Washington to Polk, were 
sectional; and nearly all legislation of Congress, 
in the formation of Territories, for over fifty years, 
has been of the same sectional character. 

Mr. Chairman, I now desire to call the' atten- 
tion of the Committee and the country to another 
leading idea in the Republican platform, to wit : 
The substantial restoration of the Missouri Com- 
promise. I have now no time to go into a histori- 
cal detail of the circumstances Unit originally led 



to the adoption of this act of Congress m 1820 ; 
neither is it necessary ; for the facts connected 
with the admission of Missouri into the Union 
are now pretty well understood. It is sufficient 
for my present purpose to remark, that, after one 
of the most stormy periods of excitement through 
which this country ever passed, it was solemnly 
agreed that Missouri should be admitted into the 
Union with a Constitution allowing Slavery ; and 
that all territory which had been acquired by 
purchase from France, north of 36° 30', should 
be forever free. The parties to this arrangement 
were the free States on the one side, and the 
slave States on the other. The prohibition north 
of 3G° 30' was both absolute and perpetual. I now 
propose to give some reasons why this contract 
should be restored in substance, if not in form. 

1. Because the repeal of the Missouri Compro- 
mise was a breach of good faith. Each section 
of the Union had become a party to this contract. 
It became a matter of national honor. The North 
and the South had both agreed to it. Each party 
was not only bound by a solemn act, but there 
was an implied pledge of honor, incidentally con- 
nected with the act, of which the parties could 
not divest themselves. 

2. The South received the consideration com- 
ing to them, paid in hand. The contract was rat- 
ified ; and, with the ratification, Missouri was 
admitted. This repudiation is the more insulting 
to the North, from the fact that, just as soon as 
the consideration assigned her in this compact 
became of any value to her, she was cheated out 
of it. Good faith, fair play, and honest dealing 
all require the restoration of the contract. 

3. This compact was abrogated under false 
pretences, and in its practical operation was a 
fraud upon the people. This will appear for two 
reasons : 

First. At the time the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
was under consideration, it was declared over and 
over again, both in and out of Congress, that 
Slavery never would go into any part of these 
Territories. This pretext was used as an argu- 
ment to quiet the excited feelings of the people, 
and reconcile them to the outrage. Charity would 
leave us to presume that no member of Congress 
would make such an assumption, and send it to 
the country, unless he believed it. If so, no 
greater mistake could have been made. In looking 
over the debates in the Senate upon the Nebraska 
bill, we find such opinions were expressed by 
Mr. Pettit, of Indiana; Mr. Hunter, of Virginia; 
Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut; Mr. Thomson, of 
New Jersey ; Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania ; 
.Mr. Badger, of North Carolina; Mr. Everett, of 
Massachusetts ; Mr. Douglas, of Illinois ; Mr. 
Dixon, of Kentucky; Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, 
ami Ceneral Cass, of Michigan. 

In the House, the advocates of the bill general- 
ly said the same thing. These declarations were 
sent all over the country, and had their effect 
They were retailed out with great gusto by all 
the office-holders of the Administration, from the 
highest in grade and employment, to the four and 
six-penny postmasters and tide-waiters. The bar- 
rier of Freedom was stricken down ; and what 
then became of all their pompous assumptions ? 



6 



Slaveholders went into Kansas, carrying with 
them their slaves. The first Legislature elected 
under the organic law of the Territory, by slave- 
holders and " border ruffians " — a Legislature, 
the laws of which the friends of the Administra- 
tion say are legal and binding — laws which the 
President has threatened to enforce at the mouth 
of the cannon and the point of the bayonet, enact- 
ed and placed upon the statute book of the Terri- 
tory a law, declaring — 

"If any person print, write, introduce into, or publish, 
or circulate, or cause to be brought into, printed, written, 
published, or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or assist 
in bringing into, printing, publishing, or circulating, with- 
in this Territory, any book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, 
handbill, or circular, containing any statements, argu- 
ments opinion, sentiment, doctrine, advice, or innuendo, 
calculated to produce a disorderly, dangerous, or rebel- 
lious disaffection among the slaves of this Territory, or to 
induce such slaves to escape from the service of their 
masters, cr to resist their authority, he shall he guilty of 
a felony, and be punished by imprisonment at hard labor 
for a term not less than five years." 

Here is another section of this barbarous stat- 
ute : 

"If any free person, by speaking or writing, assert or 
maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in 
this Territory, or shall introduce into this Territory, print, 
publish, wriie, circulate, or ciuse to be introduced into 
this Territory, written, printed, published, or circulated, 
in this Territory, any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, 
or circular, containing any denial of the right of persons 
to hold slaves in thisTerritor) , such person shall be deem 
eJ guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard 
labor for a term not less than two years." 

In the Squatter Sovereign, a newspaper publish- 
ed at Atchison, in Kansas Territory, by Stringfel- 
low & Kelly, and which is receiving the patronage 
of President Pierce and his Administration, under 
date of February 19, 1856, I find the following 
advertisement : 

• : For Sale — A. verv likely Negro Girl, ten years old. 
Apply at this office. " Feb. IS, 1856. 50 4vv." 

We prove here by one of the Administration 
organs — which, by the way, lauds Pierce and the 
Democratic party to the skies — that Slavery not 
only exists de facto in Kansas, but that little negro 
girls are publicly advertised and sold in that Ter- 
ritory. 

I will give one more specimen of the barbarous 
code of the " border ruffian " Legislature, which 
is designed to corrupt the very fountains of justice, 
and establish and perpetuate Slavery in this Ter- 
ritory : 

"No person, who is conscientiously opposed to holding 
slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in 
this Territory, shall sit as a juror on the trial of any prose- 
cation for any violation of any of the sections of this act." 

Thus facts prove that the argument that, on 
account of soil, climate, or other reason, Slavery 
would not go into Kansas in consequence of the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, was all a de- 
lusion ; so far as it had an influence, it every- 
where deceived and cheated the people. 

Another reason, urged with great vehemence by 
the advocates of the Nebraska bill, in favor of the 
measure, was this : that it would " establish the 
doctrine of popular sovereignty," and give the people 
of the Territories the right to form and regulate 
their own domestic institutions. I have now no 
time to go into an extended argument to show 
the utter fallacy of this specious pretence, this 
false light, held out to blind, bewilder, and cheat 



the people into the support of a measure abhor- 
rent to all their better feelings. 

But I will call the attention of the Committee to 
one or two facts, which go to prove, beyond all 
controversy, that the friends of the bill, while 
they declared, when the same was under consider- 
ation, that the bill would confer upon the people 
of the Territories the right to legislate upon the 
question of Slavery in the same, meant no such 
thing; they were looking one way and rowing 
another ; that while they were pretending to confer 
certain rights, they were forcing a bill through 
Congress, the very object of which was to deprive 
them of any such power. 

Now to the proof. When the Kansas bill was 
under consideration in the House, an honorable 
member from Indiana [Mr. Mace] offered the 
following amendment: 

"And the Legislature of said Territory is hereby clothed 
with full power, at any session thereof, to establish or pro- 
hibit Slavery." 

This amendment was rejected — ayes "76, noes 
94. — Cong. Globe, vol. 28, part 2, p. 1238. 

Another amendment to said bill was offered by 
one of my honorable colleagues, [Mr. Fuller,] 
which reads as follows : 

" And the Territorial Legislature shall have power to 
establish or exclude Slavery, as to them shall seem proper." 
In offering this amendment, my honorable col- 
league said : 

"This bill has been advocated at the North solely npou 
the ground that it gives the people of the Territory the 
right to legislate for themselves upon the subject of Slavery 
while in a Territorial state. I declare myself here to be 
the friend and advocate of that doctrine; and it is because 
this bill does not establish this great American principle, 
and vindicate this doctrine, that I am opposed to i> in its 
present state. Now, sir, I wash my hands of any attempt 
lo deceive them upon this vital point in the bill. My con- 
stituents shall not be deceived by me." — Cong. Globe, vol 
23, part 2, p. 1239. 

My honorable colleague put the only reason- 
able, legal construction upon said bill that it 
would bear. This amendment, too, was voted 
down. 

In further proof of the position I am now 
considering, I will cite the thirty-second section 
of the " act to organize Kansas and Nebraska." 
The phraseology of this section is peculiar. It 
was artfully drawn ; and, while it pretends one 
thing, means quite another. It first undertakes to 
extend the " Constitution" over the Territory, by 
declaring that 

"The Constitution, and all laws of the Uuited States 
which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same 
force and effect in said Territory of Kansas as els where 
in the United States, excepting the act preparalory to the 
admission of Missouri into the Union." 

Who ever before heard of such a monstrous 
absurdity? Congress, who derive all their power 
to act from the Constitution, here undertake to 
extend this great fundamental law of the land 
over a Territory within the jurisdiction of the 
United States. When did ever a Congress under- 
take before to legislate the Constitution into a Ter- 
ritory? Never, sir; never. No such provision 
was ever contained in any previous act organi- 
zing a Territory: hence, by fair reasoning, Oregon, 
Washington, Utah, New Mexico, and Minnesota, 
are all left without the protection of the Consti- 
tution ; and Congress can have no jurisdiction 



over them, for the reason that that branch of the 
General Government derives all its poiver to legis- 
late from the Constitution ; and the only legiti- 
mate conclusion which follows is, that these Ter- 
ritories are each now so many independent sover- 
eignities, owing allegiance to no power but them- 
selves. 

After declaring the Missouri Compromise " in- 
operative and void," the same section goes on to 
say: 

11 It being the true intent and meaning of this act. ii"t 
to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, or to ex- 
clude it therefrom, but to leave the, people thereof perfect- 
ly free to form and regulate their dome-tic institutions in 
their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted Stales." 

The deception lies in this — that, while this act 
professes to make a certain grant of power to the 
people of the Territories, it contains a proviso 
which, according to the Southern sectional con- 
struction giveti it by the Democratic party, entire- 
ly takes it away. 

The argument to this : The Constitution is the 
great fundamental law of the United States. 

To make the fraud less perceptible, by a sort 
of extra-judicial legislation, the Constitution is 
extended over the Territory. The grant of power 
here is made " subject to the Constitution," which 
is another piece of extra-judicial legislation. Then 
follow out the Southern construction — that the 
" Constitution allows slaveholders to carry their slaves 
into the Territories, and there protects them in that 
kind of property,'' and you have the whole thing 
in a nutshell. Of course the people of a Territory 
cannot make a law contravening the Constitution. 
Thus it is plain that the act was intended, not to 
give " popular sovereignty," but to take it away ; 
and, by a forced construction of the Constitution, 
legislate Slavery into the Territory of Kansas. In 
order to show that I am treating this matter fair- 
ly, and do not misrepresent our Democratic friends, 
I will read from remarks of an honorable member 
from Pennsylvania, [Mr. J. Glancy Jones,] made 
in answer to certain interrogatories propounded 
to him by an honorable gentleman from Kentucky, 
[Mr. Cox,] prior to the organization of the House. 
From the acknowledged talents and high stand- 
ing of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylva- 
nia — from the fact that he was the author of the 
resolutions adopted by the first Democratic cau- 
cus of members of the House, and is a distin- 
guished leader of that party — I feel justified in 
drawing the inference that he truly reflects the 
opinions of that party. 

In answer to certain questions propounded by 
the gentleman from Kentucky, as to the legality 
of the Territorial laws of Kansas, he said : 

"Iu my opinion, the Constitution limits the power of 
Congress to the extent of prohibiting them either from 
establishing or abolishing Slavery in the Territories. Ad- 
mitting that view to be correct. 1 suppose it follows, as a 
matter of course, that t e forts* itution of the United States 
confers upon the people of the Territory no right to dis- 
possess any man of his riyhl to property, whether it be 
slave or any other pc periy. And, therefore, the Legis 
lative Council of a Territory, though they may pass laws 
regulating the disposal and protection of property, have 
no right to so administer those laws as to establish or 
abolish the right to hold that property." 

Another honorable member, ex-Governor Smith, 
of Virginia, in the same debate, said : 



"If I lad supposed there was any .nc opinion more 
universal than any other in the South, it was the o union 
that a Territorial Government, while it remained in a 
state of infancy, has no power either to admit or to pro- 
hibit Slavery within its limits. I say that this Congress, 
this Government, having no right or power whatever to 
admit Slavery fr prohibit it in the Territories, has no right 
or power to delegate that power to the Territories them- 
selves " 

A distinguished Senator from Mississippi, (ex- 
Governor Brown,) a few days since, in a speech 
in the Senate, said : 

'■ It will be seen at once that the line of argument wi ich 
I have marked out tor myself will lead me to consider, to 
«ome extent the doctrine ol ' squall' r sovereignty.' This 
doctrine, hovvver well designed by its authors, has, in 
my judgment, been the fruitful source of half our troubles. 
Before the | eople of the two sections of the Union, hav- 
ing—as they supposed, though I thuk erroneously— hos- 
tile interests, and already inflamed by angry passions, 
were invited into the country, we, who gave them laws, 
should have defined clearly and distinctly what were to 
be their rights after tluy got there. Nothing should have 
been left to construction I believed, when the Kansas 
bill was passed, that it conferred on the inhabitants ot the 
Territories, during their Tern orial exigence, no right to 
exclude, or in anywise to interfere with. Slavery." * 

■■There seems to be a certain undefined idea in the 
minds of some men, that the sovereignty of a Territory is 
inherent in the peop e of a Territory : that it c«me to them 
fronton high— a sort of poliienl manna, descended from 
Heaven on these ehildien of the forest. This do trine. 1 
confess is a little too ethereal for me; I do not compre- 
hend it ; but tl is I know— if the sovereignty is in the peo- 
ple of the Territory, whether they obtained it from God or 
men, the conduct of litis Government towards them is 
most extraordinary. Il is nothing short of downright 
usurp uion and de-potism. We have now seven Govern 
or< appointed by the Present, by and with the advice 
a d consent of the Senate, to govern the seven, Territories 
of the United States. We have seven aifFer-'rit sets offer 
ritoiia- Judges, appointed in the same way, to expounc 
the laws fo' the seven Territories. We have M;:r- a's io 
arrest, and District Attorneys to prosecute. the inhabitant* 
of iie-'se sovereignties in their own country. We require 
ihe Ti rritories to legislate in obedience to our acts; and 
le t they may go astray, we sometimes oblige them to 
send up their laws for our approval. Il has happe lejl. 
time and time again, that their legislation has fallen un- 
der the disapprobation of Congress, and thereby become 
void What a mockery to disclaim the sovereignty your- 
selves, declare thai it is in the people of the Terri ory, and 
then send a Governor to rule them. Judges to expound 
their laws. Marshals to arrest, and District Attorneys u 
pros-cute them; and, finally, to r iqmre these sovereigns 
to send up their laws for your sanction ; and then, by yow 
disapproval, to render them null 1 " 

The Richmond Enquirer, (Virginia,) a leading 
Democratic paper, recently contained an elabo- 
rate article, from which I make the following ex- 
tract: 

'■ We must, in the Cincinnati platform, repudiate squat 
•it sovereignty, and expressly assert Slate equality. We 
must declare that it i* the duty of the General Govern 
ment to see that no invidious or injurious dis motions are 
made between the people or the proper. y of different s. c- 
tio'is in the Territories. We do not mean to dictate. 1' 
may be that the assertion in ihe platform of the abstract 
pn position of Slate equality may suffice to carry alouij 
with it the eons qiienees which we desire. But it is often 
charged that the Kamas-Nebraska bill contains the doc- 
trine of squatter sovereignty, and that squatter sovereign 
ly is the most efficient agent o< Free-Sodism. Some [all] 
Northern Democrats have maintained this ground. i\ow. 
this gun must be spiketj. It must appear from our plat- 
form that we maintain practical Sute equality, and repu- 
diate that construction of the Kansas-Nebraska act which 
would defeat it." 

The doctrine that the Constitution carries Sla- 
very into the Territories, and there legalizes and 
protects it, and that the people of the Territories 
have no right under the Constitution to legislate 
upon the subject, except to "regulate" it, was, 
at the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebras- 



ka bill, and now is, the doctrine of the friends of 
that measure. 

Then I ask, sir, what becomes of your siren 
song of " Squatter Sovereignty," and the right 
given to the people of the Territories by the Ne- 
braska bill '• to form their own domestic institu- 
tions ? " It is all a baseless humbug, an outrage- 
ous imposition, whose light only 

" Leads to bewilder, and dazzles to blind." 
There is one more very important reason why 
the Missouri Compromise should be restored. It 
is to protect the people of Kansas in the enjoyment 
of their constitutional rights. As we have already 
remarked, the Kansas-Nebraska bill was advo- 
cated on the ground that it would confer powers, 
rights, and privileges, upon the people of Kansas, 
not enjoyed by the people of other Territories 
under their organic acts. Now, what has been 
its practical operation ? I have now no time to 
answer this question in detail. Instead of en- 
joying the extraordinary rights promised by the 
Kansas-Nebraska act, the people of that Terri- 
tory have been hunted down like wild beasts — 
been waylaid and butchered in the streets ; they 
have been lynched and mobbed ; their houses 
sacked and burned to the ground ; their printing 
presses thrown into the rivers ; their property 
destroyed ; and almost every indignity which the 
wickedness of men or devils could invent, show- 
ered down upon their devoted heads. 

The Territory has been invaded by armed 
mobs, who have spread themselves into every 
settlement ; the peaceful settlers have been forced 
to surrender' their ballot-boxes at the point of 
the bayonet, and then driven from the polls. In 
order to show the kind of spirit which actuated 
»hese invaders, I read the following extract from 
the Kickapoo Pioneer, a paper which supports 
this Administration, and receives its patronage: 

"The South must be up and doing; Kansas mu*t and 
shall be a slave State Mark what we say, Southern 
freemen ! Come along with your negroes, and plough up 
every inch of ground that is at this moment disgraced and 
defaced by an Abolition plough. Send the scoundrels 
back to whence they came, or send them to hell, it mat- 
ters not which destination ; suit your own convenience 
Sound the bugle of war over the 1 ngth and breadth of 
the land, and leave not an Abolitionist in the Territory to 
relate their treacherous and contaminating deeds. Strike 
your piercing rifle-balls and your glittering steel to their 
black and poisonous hearis; let the war-cry i.e. er oe ise 
in Kansas again, until our Territory is divested of the last 
vesUge of Abolitionism." 

Sir, the " Constitution of the United States has 
been legislated into Kansas," and the people given 
" popular sovereignty ; " and this is the kind of 
protection it has afforded them. All the protec- 
tion the National Administration has afforded 
these hardy pioneers has been the protection the 
" wolf affords the lamb," by removing Governor 
Reeder, and sending out Wilson Shannon to en- 
force the bogus laws of a border-ruffian Legisla- 
ture. There never will be any permanent peace 
in Kansas until the question of Freedom or Slavery 
is settled, either by the restoration of the Missouri 
Compromise, or her admission into the Union as 
a free State, which is substantially the same 
thing. 

I now pause to inquire, Is there anything 
sectional, on the part of the Republican party, in 



their constitutional attempts to restore the na- 
tional honor, and protect the people of Kansas in 
the peaceful enjoyment of their civil rights ? If 
there is, make the most of it. 

The second general proposition I now desire 
to discuss, is the " Sectionality of the Democratic 
party." In pursuing this investigation, I intend 
to speak respectfully, but plainly. There are 
many reminiscences still lingering about the old 
Democratic party, of a pleasant character. It was 
once a great and powerful party. It was the 
party originally founded by Jefferson ; and as we 
travel from its organization down the stream of 
time, we find in its front ranks some of the greatest 
and best men that ever honored and graced our 
country. It was once a party proudly standing 
upon a platform of national principles, around 
which the patriotic of every section, North and 
South, could consistently rally. But " how have 
the mighty fallen," and the "fine gold become 
dim!" Where stands the so-called Democratic 
party of the present day? Has it not changed 
fronts ; abandoned its old landmarks ; denied the 
faith, and gone over to sectionalism ? These 
questions I now propose to discuss. 

Slavery can in no just sense be termed a na- 
tional institution. We have already shown that 
the founders of the Republic did not so consider 
it. Both the Constitution and the early legis- 
lation of the country clearly indicate the fact, 
that Washington, and Jefferson, and Madison, 
and their cotemporaries, looked forward to the 
ultimate extinction of this evil at an early day. 
The framers of the Constitution left Slavery where 
they found it — with the States — a municipal regu- 
lation, subject entirely to their jurisdiction and 
control. Being left to the States, it became ef 
necessity sectional. Beyond the jurisdiction of 
the States where it exists, it has no legal protec- 
tion. Again: Slavery is an unnatural right, and 
can only exist by virtue of the local laws of the 
States. 

This question has been so decided by our judi- 
cial courts, North and South, over and over again. 
But in order to put this matter beyond all doubt, 
I will cite two or three authorities from the de- 
cisions of courts in slave States. 

In the case of the State of Mississippi vs. Isaac 
Jones, the Court decided that 

''The right of the master exists not by force of the law 
of nature, or of nations, but by virtue only of the positivt 
law of the Slate." 1 — Walker's Reports, 66. 

Iu another case in the same State, the Court 

say : 

'"Slavery is condemned by r^mon rind the laws oi na- 
ture, it exis's, a .d can only exist, through municipal reg- 
ulation." — Hoy vs. Decker, Walker's Reports, 42. 

The next authority which I read is from 2 
Martin's Louisiana Reports, 402, 403 : 

'• The reia:ion of owner and save is. in the States of 
this Union iu which ii has a le ,ul existence, a zrealure oj 
municipal law." 

I will cite one other authority to this point, out 
of the many that are found in the Reports. I 
read from the case of Rankin vs. Lydia, 2 Mar- 
shall's Kentucky Reports, iu which the Court 
say : 

" Slavery is sanctioned by the laws of mis State. 'Ken- 



tucky,) and the, right to hold them under our municipal 
regulations is unquestionable. But we view this as a 
right existing by positive law of a municipal character, 
without foundation in At law of nature, or the unwritten 
and common law." 

Chattel Slavery has no existence except in one 
section of the country ; therefore, any political party 
which favors Slavery, or in any way lends its 
influence to spread it, favors one section of the 
country at the expense of the other, and is most 
emphatically a sectional party. A party whose 
leading object is to favor the " peculiar institu- 
tions " of the South, can have no element of na- 
tionality about it. 

I have already remarked that the Democratic 
party was once a national party. The leading men 
of the party, until within a tew year3, held that 
Congress had constitutional power to prohibit 
Slavery in the Territories, and that it is expedient 
to exercise this power. I have already spoken 
of the position of leading Democrats in the early 
history of the country. So well settled was this 
principle, that when the Wilmot proviso was first 
introduced into Congress in 1847, only two Dem- 
ocratic members from the free States voted against 
it. Among those who voted for it, were the Hon. 
Robert McClelland, now Secretary of the Interior; 
Senator Brodhead, of Pennsylvania; ex-Governor 
Dunlap. of Maine ; and the late Senator Norris, 
of New Hampshire. The late lamented Silas 
Wright, General Dix, of New York, and other 
leading Democrats all over the country, favored 
the measure. The leading papers of the Demo- 
cratic press came out for it. The Eastern Argus, 
the leading Democratic paper in Maine, and the 
New Hampshire Patriot, the leading Democratic 
I aper in New Hampshire, both took strong 
ground for the proviso. More than this, a ma- 

, of the free States of the Union passed reso- 
lutions instructing their Senators in Congress to 
go for the measure , and in a majority of these 
States the />■ mocratie party held the political con- 
trol. In 1848, the following, among other Demo- 
cratic members, voted for the bill organizing the 
Territory of Oregon, with a proviso forever pro- 
hibiting Slavery : Messrs. Allen, of Ohio; Benton, 
of Missouri ; Bright and Breese. of Indiana ; 

;las, of Illinois; Dodge, of Wisconsin ; Dix 
and Dickinson, of New York : and Houston, of 
Texas. — Congressional Globe. 

President Pierce himself, at a meeting held at 
Concord, New Hampshire, June 12, 1845, as re- 
ported in the New Hampshire Patriot, in reply to 
Senator Hale, said : 

" He had only to say now, wl.dthe had always said, thai 
he regarded Slavery as one of the greatest moral ami 
social evils— a curse upon the whole country ; and Un- 
tie believed to be the sentiment of all men of all parties al 
the North. Mr P. was free to admit that he had bimsell 
a;>proaclW thi- subject of annexation [of Texas] wilh all 
his prejudices and prepossessions against it. and on one 
t r..und alo ie — its Slavery feature. His convictions on 
this subject were, as he had stated, strong— not tin- resu I 
of any uew light, but deeply fixed and abiding. The only 
nliy in bis mind ever had been, that of a recognition, 
y uew act of our Government, of the instill) 
domestic Slavery ; and ho had found il extremely dillicult 
10 bring his mind to a condition impartially to weigh the 
argument for and against the measure."' 

In 1851, General Pierce, in the Convention of 
New Hampshire for revising the Constitution, 



left the chair, made a speech which was reported 
in the New Hampshire Patriot, and among other 
things said : 



" I would take the ground of the non extension of Sla- 
very— that Slavery should not become stronger. But Con- 
gress have only re-enacted the old law of 1793. Union- 
loving men. desiring peace and Roving ttnir country, con- 
ceded that point — unwillingly conceded it— and, planting 
themselves upon this law against the outbursts of popular 
feeling, resisted the agnation which is assaulting all who 
stand up for their country. Hut the gentleman says that 
the law is obnoxious. What single thing is there connect- 
ed with Slavery that is not obnoxious? Even the gentle- 
man from " nj'.bnrough (1 r. Batchellar) cannot feel more 
deeply than 1 do on ihe subject. 1 ' 

New Hampshire and Maine have heretofore 
been the two leading Democratic States, not only 
in New England, but the Union. The Democratic 
party in these two States were the very last to 
falter, and the last to be conquered; for they, like 
General Taylor, never surrendered." As long 
ago as 1828, the county of Cumberland, in Maine, 
the larger portion of which is in my district, 
"solitary and alone " in all New England, gave her 
electoral vote to Andrew Jackson. For this act of 
fidelity to the gallant old hero, this county was 
long known as the " Star in the East ; " and the 
now venerable James C. Churchill, who was the 
standard-bearer of the " unterrified " in that great 
fight, is n«w an honored member of the Republi- 
can party. I have seen a letter written by him, 
dated Portland, March 21, 1856, in answer to an 
invitation from the " American Republicans " of 
Dover, New Hampshire, to meet with them and 
celebrate the late glorious victory in that State, 
in which he says : 

'I congratulate you most heartily and sincerely in hav- 
ing obtained a victory so signal and so glorious It seems 
tome the advocate of Rum' lacks good morals and good 
judgment; the advocate of extension of -Slavery ' lacks 
good sense and good principles, and every good thing for 
which our fathers fought and conquered in the Revolu- 
tion." 

In 1832, Maine gave her ten electoral votes to 
Old Hickory, and gallant New Hampshire wheeled 
in by her side, with her seven. In 1836, they 
both' went for Van Buren. In 1840, the Democ 
racy of Maine, after a terrible fight, was beaten 
only by a few hundreds. " Hard cider, log cabins, 
and gold spoons," were too much for her. But 
New Hampshire, firm as her "granite hills," 
breasted the storm, withstood the shock, and gave 
her seven electoral votes for Van Buren. In 1844, 
both States went for James K. Polk; in 1848, 
both voted for General Cass ; and in 1852, both, 
by overwhelming majorities, chose electors for 
Franklin Pierce. 

With this clean Democratic record, where has 
the Democratic party in these States stood upon 
the question of Slavery prohibition in the Terri- 
tories ? I answer, just where the Republican 
party now tland; and I will proceed to prove it. 
The Democratic State Committee ofNew Hamp- 
shire, in October, 1847, passed the following res- 
olution : 

" Resolved. That we declare it oi;r solemn conviction, 
as the Democratic pa'iy have hi retofore done, thai neither 
should hereafter exist in 
any Territory which maj be acquired by or annexed to 
the United States; and thai we approve of the votes ol 
oar delegation in Congress in favor of the YVilmot Pro- 
viso." 



10 



In 1848, the Legislature of that State, which 
had an overwhelming Democratic majority, re- 
solved as follows : 

'■ Rtslv-d by the Senate and House of Representatives in 
General Court convened. That we. are in favor of ;he pas- 
sage of a law, by Cpngress,jrWoer prohibiting Slavery in 
New Mexico and Caii ornia, and in all o'her Territories 
now acquired, or hereafttr to be acquired, by the United 
Slates, in which Slavery does not exUt at the time of such 
acquisi ion." 

And in 1849, the New Hampshire Legislature, 
still strongly Democratic, unanimously adopted 
the following resolutions : 

'•Resolved bi/ the S-nate and House of Representatives in 
General Court convened. That, opposed to every form of 
oppression, the people of New Hampshire have ever view- 
ed with deep regret the existence of Slavery in this Union; 
that while they have steadfastly supported all sections in 
<heir constitutional rights, they have not only lamented 
its existence as a great social evil, but regarded it as 
r'.avght with clanger to the peace and welfare of the nation. 

■ Resolved, That while we respect the rights of the slave- 
holding as we!! as the free portions of this Union — while 
we will not willingly consent that wrong be done to any 
member of the glorious Confederacy to which we belong, 
we are firmly and unalterably opposed to the extension of 
Slavery aver any portion of American soil now free. 

" R solved. That, in our opinion, Congress has the con- 
stitutional power to abolish the slave trade and Slavery in 
'Jie District of Columbia ; and that our Senators be instruct- 
el, and our Representatives be requested, to take all consti- 
tutional measures to accomplish these objects. — See Speech 
of Senator Hale. 

But how have the Democratic "veterans of an 
hundred battles" in Maine stood upon this ques- 
tion? We will see. 

In 1847, Hon. John W. Dana was Governor of 
Maine, and the Legislature was strongly Demo- 
cratic. In his annual message, Governor Dana 
said: 

'•The territory which we may acquire as indemnity for 
claims upon Mexico is free; shall it be made slave terri- 
tory? The sentiment of the free States is profound, sin- 
cere, and almost universal, that the influence of Slavery 
upon productive energy is like the blight of mildew — that 
it is a moral and a social evil; that it does violet ce to the 
rights of man, as a thinking, reasoning, and responsible 
being; that its existence in this territory will shut "Ut free 
labor, because the free man will not submit himself to the 
; -gradation which attaches to labor wherever Slavery 
■\ists. Influenced by such considerations, the free Slates 
•vill oppose the introduction of Slavery into the territory 
which may be acquired." 

In speaking of the right of slaveholders to hold 
their slaves in the Territories of the United States, 
he further said : 

"On the other hand, the slave States claim that this ter- 
ritory will be acquired, if acquired tit a I. by the blood and 
treasure of all the Slates of the Union, to become the joint 
property of all; to be held for the benefit of all And they 
emphatically ask, 'Is it consistent with justice?' His 
right to acquire and possess property is one of the inhe- 
rent rights of man, independent of laws and Constitutions. 
Not so with the right to his slave; that is an unnatural, 
an artificial, a STATUTE kigiit; a:id when he voluntarily 
passes with a slave "to a Territory, where the statute rec- 
ognising the right does not exist, then at once the rivdit 
ceases to exist. The slave becomes a free man, with 

JUST AS MUCH RIGHT TO CLAIM THE MASTER, AS THE MASTER 
TO CLAIM THE SLAVE." 

This is precisely where the Republican party 
now stand. And who is Governor Dana? Now 
Minister to Bolivia, and appointed bij President 
Pierce. 

The Legislature responded, and passed the 
following resolutions, with only six nays in the 
House, and by a large majority in the Senate : 

"Resolved, That the sentiment of this State is profound, 
sincere, and almost universal, that the influence ol Slave- 
ry upon productive energy is like the blight of mildew; 



that it is a moral and social evil; that it does violence to 
the rights of man, as a thinking, reasonable, and respon- 
sible being. Influenced by such considerations, this State 
will oppose the introduction of Slavery into any territo- 
ry which may be acquired as an indemnity for claims 
upon Mexico. 

-Resolved, That, in the acquisition of any free territory, 
whether by purchase or otherwise, we deem it the duty 
of the General Government to extend oVer the same the 
Ordinance of seventeen hundred and eighty-severij with 
all its risjhts and privileges, conditions and immuui ies. 

"Resolved, Thai our Senators be instructed, and our 
Representatives requested, to support and carry out the 
principles of the foregoi g resolutions." 

August 2, 1848, the Legislature of Maine, still 
strongly Democratic, passed the following resolu- 
tions relating to the extension of Slavery in new- 
ly-acquired territory : 

" Resolved, That Maine f'uly appreciates the concession 
and compromises which led to the adoption and estab- 
lishment of the Constitution of the UuiUd Slates; and 
she will cheerfully and honestly abide by the letter anu 
spirit of them. At the same time she will firmly resist 
all demands for their enlargement and extension. 

"Resolved, That the sentin.i t of tnis Slate is profound, 
sincere, and almost universal, that the influence of Sla- 
very upon productive energy is liKe the blight of mildew; 
that it is debasing and degrading in its influence upon 
free labor ; that it is a moral and social evil ; that it does 
violence to the rights of man as a rational, thinking, and 
accountable being; influenced by these and other im- 
portant considerations, this State will firmly oppose the 
introduction of Slavery into any territory acquired as an 
indemnity for claims upon Mexico. 

'• Resolved, That it is the duty of Consress to prevent, by 
the exercise of all constitutional power, the extension ot 
Slavery into ter itory of the United States now fre-. 

"Resolved, That our Senators in Congress are hereby 
instructed, and our Representatives requested, lo support 
and carry out the principles of the foregoing resolutions/' 

June 28, 1849, the Democratic party in Maine 
held a State Convention, at which Hon. John 
Hubbard was nominated ior Governor. This 
Convention was composed of six hundred dele 
gates, at which the following resolutions were 
passed — only one solitary member voting against 
them: 

"Resolved, That the institution of human Slavery is at 
variance with the theory of our Government, abhorrent 
to the common sentiment of mankind, and fraught with 
danger to all who come within the sphere of its influence; 
that the Federal Government possesses adequate power to 
inhibit its existence in ihf Territories of the Union; that the 
constitutionality of this power has been settled oy judicial 
construction, by coUmpirraneous expositions, and by repeated 
acts of legislation; and that we enjoin upon our Senators 
and Representatives in Congress to make every exertion, 
and employ all their influence, to procure the passage of 
a law forever excluding Slavery from the Territories ot 
California and New Mexico. 

-Resolved. That while we most cheerfully concede to 
our Southern brethren the right, on all occasions, to speak 
and act with entire freedom on queslio s connected with 
Slavery in the Territories, we claim the exercise of the 
same right for ourselves; and any attempt, from any quar- 
ter, to stigmatize us or our Representatives for advocating 
or defending ihe opinions of our people upon this Ml ject. 
will be repelled as an unwarrantable act of aggress. on 
upon the rights of the citizens of litis Slnte." 

At this Convention a committee, of which Col- 
onel Ephraim K. Smart was Chairman, was 
raised to report an address to the people, from 
which address I read the following extract : 

"The Whig party of this State will undoubtedly pre- 
sent a candidate in opposition to him, [ Hubbard. J who 
will be a swift advocate of Anti-Slavery principles; but 
he will, at the same time, necessarily feel bimseli under 
greater obligations to give a ; d ami comfort to a President 
[Taylor] and Cabinet hostile to the inhibition of Slaicery in 
our Territories. A Governor with such associates would 
utterly Jail to exert any moral influence in favor of Free- 
dom is the Territories. The Ann.- Slavery professions, 

we are sure, of one who is bound to do the bidding of THE 



11 



i-RF.sF.NT Cabinet at Washington, will be taken at their 
■ m value. The people have become justly jealous of 
'hose who maleesuelt professions, and at ihe same lime cling 
in the ^r.at central power at the Capitol, and for favor 

CllKKK, ' IN « submit W THE SACRIFICE OF PRINCIPLES hi tlf 

, resent temper of the times, it will be very difficult fur such to 
■ tin power." 

And who is Colonel Smart? Answer. Col- 
li tor at Belfast, Maine, appointed by President 
I'ierce, while he is now publishing a newspaper 
called the " Free Press," puffing the President to 
lie skies, advocating the re-election of General 
Pierce with a zeal and fanaticism which throws 
every other Democrat in Maine far into the shade. 
Governor Hubbard, after his nomination, was 
written to by some of his political friends as to 
his position, and made the following reply : 

Hallowell, July 17, 1849. 

Gentlemen: Yours of thelOth, requesting a •'statement 
of my views in relation lo the extension of Slavery into 
Territories of the United States now free," is before me. 
The ques ion in all its practical bearings, as a subject of 
deliberative and solemn legislation, is an extensive one. 
I can only give here a brief statement of the principles 
which would guide my action upon it. 

First. 1 believe Congress to have entire, constitutional 
jurisdiction over the whole subject of Slavery in the Ter- 
ritories of the Uuited States. 

Second. I am opposed to Slavery in all its bearings, 
moral, social, and political, and especially am I opposed 
to its extension. 

Third. I would adopt all constitutional and equitable 
means to prevent the extension of Slavery into Territo- 
ri< B now free. 

Hoping, gentlemen, that this brief expose will meet your 
views, 1 am, with sentiments of respect and regard, yours, 

JOHN HUBBARD. 
Mefesrs. Adams Treat, Thomas M. Merkow, William 

Mfrriam, Author Treat, Jesse Smart, John Hodgdon. 

P Simonton, G N. White, Nathan Worthing, Daniel 

Wkstworih, Joseph Bachelder, Daniel Smith. 

In 1854, the Legislature of Maine — heing in 
session at the time the Kansas-Nebraska bill was 
pending before Congress — passed the following 
resolutions, but with six nays in the House, and 
only one in the Senate: 

•• Resolved, That the Senators in Congress from Maine 
be instructed, and the Representatives requested, to 
oppose in every practicable way the passage of the Ne- 
-. a bill, so called, so long as it shall contain any pro- 
t i.-i m repealing, abrogating, rescinding, or in any way 
liquidating, that provision of the act of Congress ap- 
proved March 6, 1820, commonly called the Missouri 
i oinpromise. 

• R, wived. That the Governor be requested to forward 
l cop) of the above resolution to each of our Senators 
and Representatives at Washington." 

Among those who voted for these resolves were 
Hon. N. S. Littlefield, a leading Democrat in my 
State, and four years a member of Congress, and 
President of the last Democratic State Convention 
;n Maine, held in June last, and Hon. Lot M. 
Merrill, another leader of the party, who was the 
Democratic candidate for the United States Senate 
;ii opposition to Hon. William P. Fessenden, and 
is now President of the Senate in Maine. 

Dining the Congressional canvass in my dis- 
trict, in 1854, and a few days before election, 
tny competitor for Congress, Hon. William K. 
Kimball, came out in a letter, in reply to one ad- 
■essed to him by Hon. W. II. Vinton and others, 
inquiring a3 to his position upon the Slavery 
question — which letter was extensively circulated 
through the district — in which Mr. Kimball said: 

"Gentlemen, I have received your letter of the 1st in- 
stant, and lose no time in replying to it. Upon the general 
subject of American Slavery, my opinions, perhaps, are 



not different from your own, or trom tnose usually enter- 
lained by Northern men. 1 regard it as a social, moral, 
and poli.ical evil; and iti> successful abolition, in my 
judgment, would be worth almost any price short of lhe 
Union itself. The idea of its extei sion into new Territo- 
ries most be abhorrent to every right-minded and sound- 
hearted men. Nothing could induce me to i;ive my vote 
or influence to establish it on a single foot oi free soil." 

With this letter in their hands, the friends ol 
Mr. Kimball, on the very eve of the election, went 
through my district, urging men who had for- 
merly been connected with the Free Soil party to 
vote for him, alleging, as a reason, that lie wais 
more ultra than myself upon the Slavery question, 
at the same time producing that letter as evidence 
of that fact. 

Mr. Chairman, I could go on at almost any 
length in proving, by the records of the past, that 
the Democratic party upon this question have 
in years past held the same position now occu- 
pied by the Republican party ; but I have no time 
to put in much other evidence to this point, which 
I have collected for this purpose. But I will now 
return, and desire to propound the same question 
to the Democratic party, which the Almighty put 
to Adam after he had sinned, " Where art thou?" 
and, by the way, that party is very much in the 
same condition Adam was when thus interro- 
gated; and as he was driven out of Paradise by 
his Maker for his sins, so the Democratic party 
has been driven out of power by the people for the 
same cause, with now no very good prospect of 
ever getting back into "Paradise." But to the 
question and the answer. 

After General Cass, in his celebrated <l Nichol- 
son letter," in 1848, wandered off South, and pub- 
lished to the country the fact that a <: change had 
been going ou in his own mind as well as in 
others," out of respect for, or sympathy with, a 
great political leader — with a love for the spoils, 
or an inordinate thirst for power and [dace, or 
some other reasons, he was soon followed byno 
inconsiderable number of prominent men of his 
party. From that day to this, they have been 
backing down, backing down, and backing down, 
until the Democratic party has lost every element 
of nationality, and is now become a mere sec- 
tional instrumentality, to spread Slavery into free 
territory, and build a great slave oligarchy to 
override every other interest in the whole coun- 
try. To allow Slavery to go into the vast fields 
of Kansas and Nebraska, the Democratic party 
united with the South to break down the great 
banner of Freedom in the repeal of the Missouri 
Compact. This party is now using its whole powei 
to make Slavery national. Having by sectional 
legislation exposed every foot of American soil 
to the withering, blighting mildews of Slavery, 
the party now hugs the viper to its bosom, and 
declares eternal hostility to "restoration," or a 
correction of the great wrong by them committed 
upon the best interests of the Union. 

What is Democracy in 185G? Let us eiamii 
this question. In order to a right understand in 
of this matter, I will call the attention of the Con 
mittee to certain resolutions passed by Demcr.ru I 
Conventions in several of the States, as thi 
" platform of principles — as the basis of a nntion- 
I al organization." 



12 



First, I will read certain resolutions of the 
Democracy of Alabama, at their late Convention 
to elect delegates to the Cincinnati Convention. 
This Convention declared in favor of General 
Pierce's renomination : 

Resolved, -'8. That it isexptdien? that we should be rep- 
resented in the Democratic National Convention upon 
svch conditions as are hereinafter expressed. 

"9. That the delegates to the Democratic National Con- 
vention, to nrminate a President and Vice President, are 
hereby e.rpressly instructed to insist that the said Convention 
shall adopt a platform of principles as the basis of a na- 
tional organization, prior to the nomination of candidates, 
unequivocally asserting, in substance, the following prop- 
ositions: 1. The recognition and approval of the princi- 
ple of non-intervention by Congress upon the subject of 
Slavery in the Territories. 2. That no restriction or prohi- 
bition of Slavery in any Territory shall hereafter be made in 
any act of Congress. 3. That no State shall be refused 
admission into the Union because of the existence of Sla- 
very therein. 4. The faithful execution and maintenance 
of the fugitive slave law. 

"10. That if said National Convention shall refuse to 
adopt the propositions embraced in the preceding resolu- 
tion, our delegates to said Convention are hereby positively 
instructed to withdraw therefrom^ 

The Democratic Convention of Mississippi, 
which assembled in January last to elect dele- 
gates to the same Convention, passed the follow- 
ing resolutions : 

Resolved, "4. That our delegates to the next National 
Convention ot~ the Democratic party, to be held for the 
purpose of nominating candidates lor President and Vice 
President, are hereby instructed that they are to insist on 
the adoption by said Convention of a platform of princi- 
ples which shall contain — 

"1. A recognition and adoption of the principles of the 
act of Congress commonly called the Kansas-Nebraska 
act. 

"2. A pledge to resist all attempts to abolish Slavery 
in the District of Columbia, or to prohibit the slave trade 
between the States. 

"S. A pledge to resist all attempts to repeal the fugitive 
slave bill, or impair its faithful execution." 

The Democratic State Convention of Georgia, 
the "Empire State " of the South, which, I think, 
was holden on the 6th of June last, adopted the 
following resolutions : 

"Resolved, That we adopt as our own the following 
resolution, passed unanimously by the last Legislature of 
'jeorgia : 

•• •Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Geor- 
gia. That opposition to the principles of the Nebraska 
bill, in relation to the subject of Slavery, is regarded by 
the people of Georgia as hostility to the people of the 
South, and that all persons who partake in such opposi- 
tion are unfit to be recognised as component parts of any 
parly or organization not hostile to the South.' 

'•Resolved, That in accordance with the above resolu- 
tion, whilst we are willing to act in party association with 
all sound and reliable men in every section of the Union. 
we are not willing to affiliate with any party that shall 
not recognise, approve, and carry out, the principles and 
pro isions of the Nebraska-Kansas act J aiut that the 
Democratic party of Georgia will cut off all party connec- 
tion wiili every man and party at the North or elsewhere 
that dots not come up. fully and fairly to this line of ac- 
tion." 

I have no time to refer to resolutions of Demo- 
cratic Conventions in other States ; they are all 
of the same tenor. 

The •Democratic platform has three principal 
planks : 

1. The Constitution of the United States carries 
Slavery into the Territories, and there protects it; 

2. No restriction or prohibition of Slavery in 
the Territories ; and 

3. The maintenance and execution of the fugi- 
tive slave law. 

Here is a platform constructed exclusively to 



favor Southern interests. Is it a national benefit 
to extend. Slavery into the Territories, or is it 
done for the benefit of a section? Was not the 
fugitive slave law made for the benefit of the 
South, and do not its supporters demand its 
execution to protect Southern interests ? 

The Democratic platform is sectional in all its 
parts ; and to call it ii " national " platform is a 
libel upon the common sense of every man who 
reads it. 

With all these facts glaring them in the face, 
the members of the so-called Democratic party, 
the supporters of the present national Adminis- 
tration, have the unblushing impudence to stand 
up, and say to those of us who have, on the stump 
and at the ballot-box, through good report and 
evil report, supported Jackson, and Van Buren, 
and Polk, and Pierce, (until he forsook his friends 
and abandoned his platform,) and have clung to the 
Democratic party like the mariner to the wreck, 
until there was not a single plank of its good old 
platform left to save us from perdition, that we 
have left the Democratic party — that we have 
changed and gone over to Abolitionism — when 
they know, and we know, and the whole world 
knows, that they are the men that have changed, 
they are the deserters, that they have gone off and 
offered sacrifices to strange gods, while we are 
defending the sacramental altars and consecrated 
fires of the " God of our fathers." While we 
are, in good faith, maintaining and defending the 
doctrine of Jefferson and the Democratic party, 
they are bowing down and worshiping the Dagon 
god of African Slavery. 

But it may be said the Cincinnati Convention 
will not adopt the platform dictated by the sev- 
eral State Convention I have referred to. If any 
one entertains this opinion, he is grossly mis- 
taken. What says the Democracy of Alabama? 
They instruct their delegates to " withdraw," 
unless the Convention comes up to the mark ; 
while the Democrats of Georgia declare they " will 
cut off all party connection with every man and 
parti/ at the North, or elsewhere, that does not fully 
and fairly come up to this line of action." It may 
be a bitter dose for Northern Democrats, and they 
may at first resist it ; but it will be of no use, for 
they will have to drink the poisoned draught to 
the very dregs. Yes, gentlemen, you have got to 
take the whole dose ; and, however bitter and 
nauseating it may be, you have not only got to 
swallow it, but say you love it. Every Northern 
Democrat will have to mount the Juggernaut car 
of Slavery, " hold the reing, or crack the whip," 
or be thrown overboard to be crushed under the 
ponderous weight of its gigantic wheel.-*. An 
honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Keitt] the other day, in eloquent but plain lan- 
guage, announced to the Democratic party the 
line of policy it had got to pursue to receive 
Southern support. That gentleman said : 

'•The Democratic party at the North has been cut down 
in the fight, li h;ts passed through lire and water. It ha* 
come out cleansed, with whitened garments. It is now 
strong enough to do battle for the Constitution. Will you 
swell it, for the spoils, with a motley horde, wearing 
soiled and tattered robes? If you will, gice me platform 
to the South, and the man to the North ." * * * * * 
"The South should establish in the platform the principle, 
that the right of a Southern man to his slave is tqualin its 



13 



length and breadth tn the right of the Northern man lo lus 
ftorse. She should make the recognition of the right full, 
complete, and indisputable." 

There is one other piece of evidence I will offer 
upon this point. Franklin Pierce and his Admin- 
istration are endorsed by the Democratic party. 
Of course, what he believes they believe. Now, 
to show his position and that of the party who 
support him, I will read an extract of a letter 
from Senator Evans, of South Carolina, recently 
written and published, recommending his State 
to go into the Cincinnati Convention. He says: 
•■ i'i • ■■'■■■■w Pierce is a man after our own heart. Both 
in word • and deeds tie comes nearer to our opinions than 
:< . . ma i who lias preceded him for the la«t thirty years. 
may give him the nomination, and my best judg- 
ment is that we ought to join in the selection." 

In the face of these facts, we hear it proclaimed 
in these Halls, upon the stump, and everywhere, 
that the Democratic party is a national party. 
Members of this Southern-sectional party talk 
with great flippancy about "national Democrats," 
■ aatioi al Democracy;" and almost in the same 
breath denounce the only truly national party in 
Ihe couutry as -'Black Republicans," sectional- 
is ts, and fanatics. Black Republicans 1 Who can 
help admiring the taste of a party who, for the 
want' of argument to sustain their cause, resort to 
the doubtful experiment of dealing in opprobri- 
ous epithets? "Black Republicans!" Sir, let 
the parry whose very existence is shrouded by 
>] ick" pall of Egyptian night, first wash 
out the •■ black" stains of its own pollution, before 
out contemptuous, reproachful terms 
upon its neighbors. 

Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I 
. notice another charge of a more serious 
character, brought against the Republican party. 
Tii" members of this ]';»i':y are charged with be- 
ing " disunionists." N< rer was there a charge 
more unfounded, more untrue. I call upon gen- 
tlemen iyho make this groundless assumption 
i> ictt your proof, or " back out.'' But it 
I on this floor, prior to the organization 
jf this Houae, that the distinguished gentleman 
.Vuin Ms ts, who with so much ability 

Anil impartiality presides over our legislative 
leliberations, upau a certain occasion said, there 
'might come a contingency when he should be 
rilling to let tbe Uuion slide;" and almost any 
amount of holy hoiroi was expressed by the 
Administration membs.s of the Hou3e over this 
.amor. 

Xow, sir, supposing tie honorable Speaker 
lid make this remark — a Lit. h I do not admit — it 
is no threat of disunion; it expresses no desire 
'or disunion ; and it never o,ti> rie tortured into the 
ion of a sentiment favorable to the disso- 
of the T'nion under any contingency. I 
defy any gentleman to point me to a single Repub- 
lican < Jonventioa, in any pari of the countrj . thai 
i holden, where anything like dis- 
union sentiments have been uttered. These 
of disunion again-' the Republican party, 
or any of Its members, when investigated and 
weighed in the balance of truth, will all disappear, 
like the " baseless fabric of a vision." Neither 
is then- anything in the political opinions or 
platform of the Republican party, that U 



disruption of these States. We revere the Con- 
stitution, and live up to all its obligations; and 
when we are charged with disloyalty to this 
great charter of Freedom, we hurl back the charge, 
and deny the impeachment. 

But who makes these charges against the Re- 
publican party ? What political organization 
stands up to charge the Republicans of this coun- 
try with political treason ? It is the so-called 
Democratic party that has done it, and is now 
doing it. Sir, this issue has been forced upon 
us, and we accept it. We will not only act on 
the defensive, but we " carry the war into Africa." 
How stands the Nebraska Democracy upon this 
question? 

I have some recollection about a Southern Con- 
vention at Nashville, in June, 1850. I do not say 
for what purpose this meeting was called. I will 
let Colonel Trotti, a delegate from South Caro- 
lina to said Convention, give his understanding 
of the matter, by giving an extract of a speech 
made by him at the meeting at which he was 
chosen. It may be found in the National Intel- 
ligencer, in June, 1850. He says, in giving his 
own views : 

"That Convention should say to the non-slaveholding 
States, ihe South will maintain her rights and equality in 
the Union, or she luill dissolve it." 

Ill this Convention figured several distinguished 
gentlemen of the Democratic party. One of the 
resolutions there adopted declares 

•'That the slaveholding States cannot and wiu. hot 
submit to the enactment by Congress of any law imposing 
onerous conditions and restraints upon the rights of mas- 
ters io remove with 'heir property iii'o the Territories of 
the United States." 

I think a majority of the meeting, after getting 
together, were opposed to taking any violent meas- 
ures to bring about a rupture with the General 
Government; yet Governor Foote, of Mississippi, 
in a speech in the United States Senate, July 18, 
1850, says : 

"That there were disunionists there, (though I regret to 

ackno pledge it ) is n fac ! ied. lor sevj 

eral gentlemen who acted a prominent ran in the Conven- 
tion are understood lo have unfurled the ti -g ol disunion 
since the Convention adjourned." — Appen. Cong. Gloi 
vol 22, p. 1320 

Hon. Jefferson Davis, now Secretary of War, 
in a speech in the United States Senate, June 2~, 
1850, when speaking of "disunion," said : 

:i It is an alternative not to be anticipated — one lo with 
[ con!. I look foi wai (1 lo as the last re'son ; Imt ii is one. I- 1 
me «ay, which undn litngnci'.s X am \ < ■ 

meet; and I leave my constituents to juu e win i h 
tingency arrives."- Cong, Gloht 

I could go on and read from speeches of emi- 
nent gentlemen of the Democratic party, in times 
past, in which they make direct threats to dis- 
solve the Union; but. I will only read two or 
three extracts from speeches made by Democrats 
upon this floor, containing their opinions upon 
this question. 

An honorable member from South Carolina, 
[Mr. Brooks,] in a debate in this House on thu 
24th of December last, -aid : 

•■ Y le gentleman from Massachu i ou teed to 

the world that, m eeriain contingencies he is willing to 

lei the Union slide Now. sir. lot lii; contingencies be 

red. and I am willing ie; ay, sir, 

i . ai ' ■'" makin ■ il \ :■ ' 



14 



Another honorable member from Virginia, [Mr. 
McMullin,] in a debate in this House on the 20th 
of December last, said: 

• ; One of Ihe greatest misfortunes of tbe country, Mr- 
Clerk, is the fact thai our Northern brethren mistake the 
cbara* ter of ihe SouHi. They suppose that the Southern 
disunionists are confined to the Talhoun wing of the 
Democratic patty. That, sir, is the greatest error that 
the people of the North have ever fallen into. And I tell 
you, sir, and I want the country to know it — I want the 
gentlemen from the free States, our Rt publicans, our 
Seward Republicans, our Abolitionist-, or whatever else 
you may be called, to know it — that if you iestore the 
Missouri Compromise, or repeal the fugitive slave law, 
this Union Will be dissolved. 

"If the Government goes into the hands of the North, 
into the hands of the Republican parly, of the Abolition 
party — for I like to call things by their true names — I say 
if the Government of the country goes into the hands of 
the Abolitionists of the North, and they either repeal the 
fugitive slave law or restore the Missouri Compromise, I 
tell the House, and I tell the country, that there will then 
be union at the South upon this question." 

The same gentleman goes on still further to 
say: ► 

''And let me ask gentlemen from the North, if this Union 
s dissolved, who holds your National Capitol! But let 
me say to gentlemen of the North, you cannot ?et posses- 
sion of this National Capitol. 

•'The Capitol now belongs to no section. It belongs 
alike 10 North, South, East, and West. But, sir. it was 
erected upon slave territory, and if the hand of disunion 
shall ever sever the States of this Republic, you shall 
never take possession of it while I occupy my seat as a 
Representative upon this floor. And more, I tell them 
that when the Nonh and the South sever the connection 
which now binds them together, the Nor;h will never 
take possession of this Capilol unless they pass over my 
dead body." 

The gentleman says this Capitol was erected 
u| on slave territory ; and, in case of a dissolution, 
if the North get any part of the public plunder, 
while he occupies a seat, they will have to "pass 
over his dead body." When I listened to this 
remark, it brought "vividly to my recollection a 
scene that was witnessed in this same slavehold- 
ing territory," in August, 1814, when a handful 
of British soldiers and saildrs, after spending 
about a month upon the waters of the Chesapeake, 
landed, and dragging their three pieces of artil- 
lery up by hand, over this same " slaveholding 
territory," applied the torch to the Capitol, re- 
duced it to a heap of smouldering ruins, and, 
after destroying our library and public archives, 
leisurely re-embarked, and quietly sailed away to 
other scenes of operation. 

The [>em')cratic State Convention of Alabama, 
before referred to, in their fourth resolution de- 
clare — 

"That any interference by Congress for the prtven'ion 

i Slavi I y in a iii of the Territories, would be an iuexru-a- 

b e a .1 unconstitutional infringement of the rights of the 

South, which, ii is \he deliberate sens.' of this Convention. 

n OH / 0* the 'inly of the people of Alabama to resist even 

.'<• a DISBU1 WON OF THE TIBS THAT BIND THIS STATE TO THE 

I 'kick " 

This is the parly which taunts the Republicans 
with the charge of "disunion." Let this party 
lir>t "cast the beam out of its own eye," before 
it undertakes to " cast the mote out of its brother's 
eye." 

Where can you find a Republican Convention 
passing resolves deliberately threatening to "dis- 
solve the Union," if the particular measures of 
the party are not adopted, or if the legislation of 
the country shall not happen to conform to their 



notions of constitutional law? Sir, we near a 
great deal of boasting about "National Demo- 
crats" — "National Democracy." These terms 
mean nothing but this : a party that is in favoi 
of spreading Slavery into free territory. Again, 
we hear gentlemen declaiming loud and long 
about our " constitutional obligations," which, 
when being truly interpreted, mean " catching 
runaway negroes." 

Then, again, we hear the Republican party 
denounced as Black Republicans, Disunionists, 
Abolitionists. Very well, we understand why these 
reproachful terms are applied to the Republicans. 
It is simply because they believe in the doctrines 
of the Declaration of Independence, that the Con- 
stitution embodies the greatprinciples of personal 
liberty ; it is because they stand upon the old 
time-honored platform of Washington, of Jeffer- 
son, of Franklin, of Langdon, of Madison, and 
all the early fathers. Sir, could the Father of 
his Country awake from the tomb, and leave the 
quiet retreats of his own Mount Vernon, and his 
stately form again revisit the national Capitol 
bearing his name — could the sainted spirit of the 
immortal Jefferson be reunited to the dust that 
now reposes amid the solitudes of Monticello, 
and again mingle with the living, they would 
both be denounced by this same Democratic party 
with contumelious opprobriums ; they would both 
be denounced as Black Republicans, Abolition- 
ists, traitors to this great Republic, which theii 
wisdom and patriotism founded. 

Mr. Chairman, we are gravely told, in this 
House and other places, that if the Democratic 
party are defeated in the next Presidential elec- 
tion, and the Republican party elect their candi- 
date to the Presidential chair, the Union u-Ul bt 
dissolved. Let me say to gentlemen on the othei 
side of the House, not tauntingly, but respectful- 
ly, in the face of your threat, we shall beat you 
if we can. If we succeed, (as I trust in God (ve 
shall,) then I say again, not to menace, but to 
warn you, Dissolve this glorious Union if you dare 
do it. You have practiced this same game too 
long — you have "dissolved the Union" too many 
times before, to disturb the repose or unsettle the 
nerves of the intelligent, patriotic citizens of 
these thirty-one States. Gentlemen, " Othello's 
occupation's gone." Your thundering gasconade, 
that the " Union will be dissolved," has died 
away in harmless accents, and ceases to alarm 
even the fearful and timid. But, if gentlemen 
really desire to dissolve the Union, why not do 
something besides talk and threaten ? Why not 
begin — why not try the fearful experiment? You 
need not wait a day on the account of the Repub- 
lican party. We are as willing to meet you^now 
as at any future time, and settle this question, if 
you want to try it. Yes, gentlemen, we will 
meet you upon this question whenever and wher- 
ever you present it. The Republicans of these 
United States, upon this issue, have but one flag, 
the "stars and stripes." Not one star upon its 
floating folds will they ever see bedimmed or 
blotted out — not one stripe disfigured by the law- 
less hand of treason. They have but one motto— 
the motto transmitted to the American people by 
the immortal Jackson, " The Union — it must be 



15 



preserved ; " and, like the old hero of the Her- 
mitage, they are, every man of them, ready to 
" swear by the Eternal" it shall never perish at 
the hands of any party, North or South. 

A friend some weeks since placed in my hands 
a pamphlet, containing the speeches by the dis- 
tinguished Senator from California, Mr. Weller, 
and of three distinguished gentlemen belonging 
to this House — Colonel Orr of South Carolina, 
ex-Speaker Cobb of Georgia, and General Lane 
of Oregon — made in Concord, New Hampshire, 
prior to the last election in that State. Colonel 
Orr near his closing remarks is reported to have 
said: 

"Roll back this swelling tide of Republicanism. If you 
desire 1o save lhe Union, you must overwhelm it." 

This sounds very much like Caleb Cushing's 
" crushing out." The distinguished gentleman 
calls upon his political friends to " overwhelm 
Republicanism." Yes, gentlemen, if you "de- 
sire to save the Union, you must overwhelm it." 
But how did the descendants of "Molly Stark," 
the unterrified yeomanry of the glorious old 
Granite State, respond to this call. Who was 
" overwhelmed" in New Hampshire? "Was it 
the "swelling tide of Republicanism? " No, sir! 
No, sir ! It was " sectional Democracy " — the 
legions of the forlorn hope of all that remains of 
that once honored and respectable party, led on 
by General Pierce — that was " overwhelmed." 
The honest people of that patriotic State "over- 
whelmed ' them, buried them up, and with the 
funereal rites perished the last fading hopes of 
Franklin Pierce of a re-election to the Presidency 
Who was " overwhelmed " iu Rhode Island a 
few weeks since, and who in Connecticut a few 
days since? Was it the "swelling tide of Re- 
publicanism?" No, sir; it was this same " sec- 
tional Democracy " — a party that has gone so far 
South, that it has even lost sight of the " North 
star." 

But, again, the Republicans are denounced as 
" agitators ! agitators ! ! " Sir, who began this 
agitation ? The very party who now denounce 
it. Yes, gentlemen Democrats, you fired " the 
fagot pile," and now, when its roaring flames 
send their ghastly, lurid glare in every direction 
all over the whole Union, you turn round and 
denounce your innocent neighbor with incendi- 



arism, when you yourselves applied the smoking 
torch. You have raised the wind, now you must 
" ride the whirlwind." 

But what party continues agitation upon the 
Slavery question ? Who sends message after 
message into both Houses of Congress, falsifying 
the great truths of history — denouncing the peo- 
ple of the free States, falsely charging them with 
numerous derelictions of duty? Who sends Gov- 
ernors to Kansas to enforce the brutal laws of a 
bogus Legislature upon the squatter sovereigns 
of that Territory? What party is now moving 
heaven and earth to force Slavery into Kansas, 
against the will of the people of that devoted Ter- 
ritory, and in direct violation of an old compact, 
to which both sections of the Union were a party ? 
I leave the people and the country to answer these 
questions. 

Mr. Chairman, we are deliberately told by the 
Administration party, that if the Missouri Com- 
promise is restored, and Kansas made free — that 
if the old compact of 1820 is substantially carried 
out — it " will be an end of the Union." You 
make the issue, gentlemen — we accept it. It is a 
part of the mission of the Republican party to 
make Kansas a free State ; and gentlemen on the 
other side of the House have chosen Kansas as 
the great battle-ground of Freedom, and there we 
meet you. The designs and purposes of the Re- 
publican party upon this vital question are like 
the " laws of the Medes and Persians," unalter- 
able. Our Southern brethren, more than thirty 
years ago, for a consideration paid in hand, sol- 
emnly agreed that the vast and fertile regions of 
Kansa3 and Nebraska should forever be free terri- 
tory ; and we mean to hold you to the contract. 

The great Republican party has taken its posi- 
tion. Its banner has been unfurled, and now 
proudly floats in the breezes of heaven, while upon 
its folds are inscribed in golden capitals of living 

light — NO MORE EXTENSION OF THE FOOT-PRINTS OF 

Slavery into free territory. Around this ban- 
ner are rallying the patriotic from all sections in 
the Union. 

But one spirit animates the great army of Free- 
dom. Their watchword is " Onward! onward.'" 
their battle cry, the soul-stirring words of the im- 
mortal Henry — " Give me liberty, or give me 
death." 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 
1856. 



TO THE OPPONENTS OF SLAVERY-EXTENSION. 



The Publishing Association of Washington intend to stereotype 
the Speeches delivered in Congress during the present session, and 
other Documents, suitable for use in the coming Presidential Cam- 
paign. In order to facilitate their circulation as much as possible, 
the Association will furnish and mail them, singly, to such names 
and post offices as may be desired, at one dollar per hundred for doc- 
uments of eight pages, and two dollars per hundred for documents 
of sixteen pages, free of postage. For packages of one hundred, or 
more, sent at the cost of purchasers, documents of eight pages, sixty- 
two cents, and documents of sixteen pages, one dollar and twenty- 
five cents. 

Persons sending us ten dollars and upwards can have the amount 
placed to their credit, and copies of each Speech or Document issued 
by the Association during the Campaign will be sent to their address 
or to such names as they may direct, in such quantities as may be de- 
sired, until the money sent is exhausted. Address 

LEWIS CLEPHANE, Secretary, 

Washington, D. C. 



BUELL fe BLANCHABD, Printers, Washington, D. Q. 



146 






-% ^> A ^ *v^ 







^ : » ^ : -^SR : £°+ ''WIS ? » 0v ^ '* 






4 0. 






o> v 












^\ 




* ^ 





O . * e « o ' AT 

t ?^ l^yW' ^>^U l WB^ a c£*V "WWW* A *, 



O ° • * /» <*> ' » • * _\ W <£» A _ u „ •« 










Bs^sfra wfi - 









^ 

^ 



\ r ^ 



W 



/^i- 






*> 



* 






^^ 






l: ^6^ : 



tP^. v 









%f • 






> "c 




